EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

10.14.13

Tim Berners-Lee is Wrong, DRM in HTML is a Very Big Deal

Posted in DRM at 9:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Time to fork HTML?

Tim Berners-Lee by John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Source: Original from John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, modified by Techrights

Summary: The Web’s founder, Tim Berners-Lee, now actively defends the copyright cartel, only to find loud opposition even from his biggest and more prominent fans

Tim Berners-Lee is quickly losing credibility and he has nobody else to blame. He actively echoes Hollywood talking points or at least Hollywood’s apologists, to whom a copyright monopoly or cartel is perfectly acceptable if not essential.

“It’s that time of the year again,” writes iopkh.” Time to remind the media that there are no such things as Nobel prizes in astrology, professional wrestling or economics.” Here is Cory Doctorow speaking out his mind again, urging Mozilla to tackle DRM like it already tackles Flash, namely:

Mozilla’s Shumway project, an attempt to create a replacement Flash plug-in that uses HTML5, might ever so slightly placate those barracking for the latter. Previously Shumway has only been available as a separate extension, but it recently made its way into Firefox’s nightly builds, hinting at the prospect of mainline inclusion somewhere down the line.

Glyn Moody, a vocal fan of Tim Berners-Lee, has become quite a notable opposer of his stance of DRM in HTML5. He raises some very good points:

Tim Berners-Lee on Why HTML5 “Needs” DRM

[...]

That’s an extremely odd comment, since it divides up the online world up into active creators and passive consumers. That’s precisely the framing that the copyright industry adopts in an attempt to minimise the rights of Internet users, and to belittle their role.

[...]

Putting users first is great, but this sets up a false dichotomy between those who “like to watch big-budget movies at home” and those who want an open Web, as if the former must lose if the latter win. But it’s ridiculous to suggest that companies like Netflix will stop streaming video over the Internet if the Web does not include DRM. It may do it with proprietary Web plugins, or it might even insist that people use standalone code, but that’s not a problem – it is exactly how it’s been done in the past.

Moreover, the open Web will exist and thrive even if some people choose to use proprietary code, just as open source thrives despite the existence of some closed-source applications. The only people who might conceivably lose out if DRM isn’t included in HTML is the W3C, who won’t be able to control exactly how those non-Web parts operate. But that’s true now, anyway, and I can’t believe that the W3C is so power crazed that it wants to sacrifice the open Web solely to extend its empire a little further.

The longer this goes on for, the worse Tim Berners-Lee’s reputation will get. He hopefully understands this by now. The NSA already threatens forking of the Web. Tim Berners-Lee might do the same with his stance. If not a fork, then an alternative might be put forth. There were several Web-like prototypes preceding Tim Berners-Lee’s. Although some were better, they never quite caught on. Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C may feel like they have no competition, so they think that they can get away with DRM.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

7 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    October 15, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    Gravatar

    So what is your solution? How do individuals and companies protect their IP?

    Why not have a built in standard and not a bunch of plugins people need to download?

    XFaCE Reply:

    >Why not have a built in standard and not a bunch of plugins people need to download?

    Indeed, and while we’re at it, why not breed unicrons and fairies for everyone.

    Hey Michael, you realize that this “plugin-free” solution still depends on what are essentially proprietary plugins (“Content Decryption Modules”) right? Please explain to me how this solves the problems of relying on proprietary extensions.

    >So what is your solution? How do individuals and companies protect their IP?

    Well that depends. What exactly are we protecting? Protecting from whom? What is IP in a practical sense? What about studies that show positive effects from file sharing that’s violating “protection” as you put it? Why do we need law-based and tech-based solutions? Why are tech-based solutions protected under law? What is the evidence of a broad negative effect?

    But maybe I’m too nuanced here. I should instead follow your example and use loaded questions to paint the world in black and white. “How do good honest citizens protect themselves from that stupid idiot troll Michael harassing them on the Internet?” See, I can do it too.

    Michael Reply:

    Why not have a built in standard and not a bunch of plugins people need to download?

    Indeed, and while we’re at it, why not breed unicrons and fairies for everyone.

    Do you think standards are impossible to develop? If not I do not see your point?

    Hey Michael, you realize that this “plugin-free” solution still depends on what are essentially proprietary plugins (“Content Decryption Modules”) right? Please explain to me how this solves the problems of relying on proprietary extensions.

    HTML and CSS are standardized (largely – there are, of course, browser-specific extensions). JPGs and GIFs and PNGs allow for standardized image types to be views in any browser. TCP-IP is standardized. Many other things are to allow for the Internet and the Web to even exist as they do. It makes sense to also standardize on a set of multi-media and security features. Why not continue the advancement that has been happening in the tech industry? Of course, as newer technologies come about the standards will get better – just as PNGs were not that common a decade ago but now are.

    So what is your solution? How do individuals and companies protect their IP?

    Well that depends. What exactly are we protecting? Protecting from whom? What is IP in a practical sense? What about studies that show positive effects from file sharing that’s violating “protection” as you put it? Why do we need law-based and tech-based solutions? Why are tech-based solutions protected under law? What is the evidence of a broad negative effect?

    We are not talking about the effect of people violating IP – we are talking about people’s choice to protect their own IP. Maybe you think it is a bad idea to do so. Fine. For that matter, I produce educational videos and sell them – I do not use any DRM scheme with the DVDs I sell. I even tell people how to make copies to their hard drive or other media. But this is my *choice*. I believe in choice and freedom. I am very much against Stallman and the like who want (at least as an ideal) to eliminate freedom and choice and to force all people to do as I do with their IP.

    But maybe I’m too nuanced here. I should instead follow your example and use loaded questions to paint the world in black and white. “How do good honest citizens protect themselves from that stupid idiot troll Michael harassing them on the Internet?” See, I can do it too.

    My question is a simple one: if you do not like a built in standard what do you suggest instead? Requiring people to download proprietary solutions? I do not think that should be eliminated, but I think it would make things better for technology standards to continue to advance. Does not mean web developers should be forced to use these standards – after all, I *can* have all the images on my site be in PSD format if I *want*, but it sure makes it a lot easier for developers and users if we are have common standards to follow. Why this offends you so much is anyone’s guess. I sincerely hope that if you chose to respond you can do so without name calling and other immature acts.

    XFaCE Reply:

    Or to use another example, “How do we prevent the discrimination of Christianity from gay marriage legalization?”

    Michael Reply:

    What discrimination? I do not follow what you are saying. Is someone being forced into a gay marriage? If they are then I would agree it is wrong. It sounds, however, like you are suggesting giving others freedom and choice is somehow an offensive thing to you.

    XFaCE Reply:

    I was giving a further example of a loaded question that assumes a reality, like you did in the previous post. You know, the whole “using loaded questions to paint the world in black and white.” The fact you miss that this was an example of such a question and not a statement of opinion is really reflective of your strawmaning.

    Michael Reply:

    What loaded question?

    I am merely noting that whining about standards without having a good alternative is not good. Roy and those who are against standards should come up with a *solution* (even if just in idea form – I am not saying they must implement it), not just whine about the solutions are others are coming up with.

    I am pushing for freedom and for people to go with any shade of gray they want. I am fighting against the idea that any ideas but mine must be bad. That is what Stallman pushes and what Roy repeats – use their ideas or it is immoral. No: Stallman’s GPL is a great license, but it should be a *choice*. People should be free to protect their own property in multiple ways.

    Having standards for HTML and CSS and image formats and video formats and audio formats and networking formats and IP protection all make sense (and many have already been implemented), but people should not be forced to use them and there should be freedom to improve on them and offer updated ideas that can become new standards. Nothing black and white about that at all.

    Calling this “black and white” thinking without being able to explain how or why merely shows a lack of understanding on your part. You seem to have a strong desire to disagree but no real content to use with your disagreement. Add to that your silly insults, accusations, and engagement in name calling only serves to make you look lost and immature. Please try to raise the level of your discourse.

    Thank you.

What Else is New


  1. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  2. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  3. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  4. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  5. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  6. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  7. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  8. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  9. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  10. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  11. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  12. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  13. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  14. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  15. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  16. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  17. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter



  18. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions



  19. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll



  20. In Microsoft's Lawsuit Against Corel the Only Winner is the Lawyers

    The outcome of the old Microsoft v Corel lawsuit reaffirms a trend; companies with deep pockets harass their competitors, knowing that the legal bills are more cumbersome to the defendants; there's a similar example today in Cisco v Arista Networks



  21. The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO

    Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation



  22. Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO

    True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO's future, not only to its already-damaged reputation



  23. No, Britain is Not Ratifying 'Unitary' Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow's Outcome)

    Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others'), the UPC isn't happening and isn't coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)



  24. The EPO's Paid Promotion of Software Patents Gets Patent Maximalists All Excited and Emboldened

    The software patents advocacy from Battistelli (and his cohorts) isn't just a spit in the face of European Parliament but also the EPC; but patent scope seems to no longer exist or matter under his watch, as all he cares about is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of real quality/legitimacy/merit



  25. Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

    The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence



  26. Links 14/2/2018: Atom 1.24, OSI Joins UNESCO

    Links for the day



  27. The EPO Now Censors the Central Staff Committee Like It Used to Censor SUEPO

    The EPO's Central Staff Committee (CSC) is now being treated as poorly as SUEPO several years ago (when it was threatened to remove publications from its site or face severe action)



  28. Microsoft-Connected Patent Trolls, Xerox, and Andrei Iancu

    A roundup of news pertaining to Microsoft-connected entities and their patent activity this month; Director Iancu is only loosely connected to one of them (he fought against it)



  29. The Campaign to Subvert the US Patent Office by Misrepresenting Its Successes

    Figureheads of the patent microcosm (firms that profit from patent chaos) are still meddling in affairs which they intentionally mis-portray, conflating innovation with number of patents and so on



  30. Almost All Patent Lawsuits in China Are Filed by the Chinese, But IAM (Cherry) Picks the Exception

    China's patent office (SIPO) is a pretty one-sided office where Mandarin patents get filed primarily by local firms and lawsuits too are filed by local firms; IAM, however, found a "man bites dog" slant


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts